|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Sept 16, 2010 17:34:11 GMT
bisexuality hooray~
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 16, 2010 21:14:45 GMT
And necrophiliac? Lots of options there.
But, back on-topic. Nobody else debating?
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Sept 18, 2010 9:36:13 GMT
bisexuality: least fussy lol
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Sept 18, 2010 14:33:44 GMT
Satar/Ganon : I am Bisexual
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 18, 2010 14:55:53 GMT
Who is S4?
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Sept 21, 2010 11:57:22 GMT
Saza I think
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Oct 28, 2010 5:21:40 GMT
Pardon language because DAMN I'm tired.
Also, because of said fatigue, my argument is broken and not very well-constructed. Apologies to everyone.
Okay I reregistered myself just to comment here. This is so fucking stupid. That's right, I reactivated a thrice-deleted two-year-inactive account just to say how stupid you have all been acting.
To think that being gay is abnormal you must apply the concept of binary sexuality, or many 3-part if you count bisexuals. This is bullshit. To hate gays because they are not part of the norm means that you should hate straight people because they only compose a fraction of the norm as well.
Sexuality is intended to be a private matter, and is only a public issue because sexuality is repressed legally and socially. To think that the gay community is harming others is the exact reason why the taboo should be removed. Sex and all properties of it should be private, but also open. We shouldn't fear people who are no different from us, and we shouldn't actively protest their existence.
Kurai's points are all ad hominems, therefore I will not regard the terms 'slimy,' 'ruinous,' and so forth because they are stupid things to say in any discussion.
"Gays don't want love" has no factual evidence, and is outright wrong from a purely empirical perspective of someone who is friends with many people who are not straight and/or cisgendered.
Shadowlord's point that it's biologically abnormal has absolutely no value. Alan Turing was gay and therefore had no ability to reproduce? So you're saying he had no value to society whatsoever? Biological normalcy has nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, a lot of pro-gay points here imply that you would be gay if you were of the opposite gender, which, while potentially true, probably falls under gender identity more than sexual identity because you consider yourself to be of the opposite gender of your hypothetical gay self.
In conclusion: none of you know how to correctly argue a goddamn point.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 28, 2010 5:25:45 GMT
Oh, Sandmaster. Our debates have been so empty without you.
I must agree with your points, of course. This isn't about male or female, but samesex and othersex.
I can see TSL's view, though. Being somewhat biologically abnormal and having no value to evolution doesn't necessarily mean they have no value to society.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 3, 2010 3:32:13 GMT
I was pretty sure TSL's view was that homosexuality lacks value BECAUSE it is abnormal and I was opposing it.
I kind of feel this is unconcluded, so don't die, thread.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 3, 2010 3:52:20 GMT
I thought his view was that they are generally normal, but there is something biologically wrong with them. Not necessarily useless.
|
|
Soleil Deimos
Newbie
<!Classic!>Former Owner, Moderator, and Jackass
Posts: 8
|
Post by Soleil Deimos on Nov 3, 2010 4:51:08 GMT
Across this board, and across the world, there seems to be many people with many reasons to hate homosexuality, and anyone who is involved with it. Every one of them has their reasons, every one has their convictions. And yet, never in my life, have I heard of a single valid reason for the (often violent) hate of homosexuals. You would think that even one of those arguments would be even slightly reasonable, and yet, all of them seem to be filled with an unreasonable fear, an uncalled for hatred that borderlines on psychosis.
There are some arguments that seem to have some basis in reality, such as that homosexuals cannot reproduce and are therefore not of any use. I have also heard the insane rantings the religious zealots, preaching how it is a sin. No matter what is presented, every one of them gives no substantial reason whatsoever, for the intolerance.
To those who make the claim that homosexuality is useless as it cannot produce offspring, do you really think the world NEEDS any more people? As if there aren't enough of us starving to death already, you seem to be claiming that there is some need, some necessity for more children. Even disregarding that, are people who cannot reproduce for other reasons, such as women who have had their uterus removed, also so worthless to our society? Should we disown and brand them also, as "unnatural" and deny them of their rights? And what of contraceptives? Should we abolish condoms, birth control pills, seeing as that too, is "unnatural"?
To those who believe that being gay is a choice, I want you to prove it. I want you to look at a person from the same gender and find them sexually attractive. Can you? If you can, you are either a closeted gay or a bisexual.
To the deeply religious, screaming with blind hate taken from eon old books written by people who lived in a violent world, claiming that no God would allow such an abomination, why do you do this? If your God is so loving, so caring, so understanding in all his greatness, why would he allow such a thing in the first place? I'm sure you believe that being gay is a choice too. If so, I ask again, prove that it is. If your God creates man in an image of himself, why would he sentence some of us to an eternal hell from birth?
I know that those of you filled with extreme homophobia won't think about anything I've just said here. I know that you will find some way of reassuring yourself that you are justified in your hatred. But I sincerely hope that maybe someone will, if just for a second, consider my points.
(also, no I did NOT read the thread)
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 3, 2010 5:38:59 GMT
Soleil Deimos, I think you just won respect from me with that logical, thought-out argument.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 3, 2010 13:39:17 GMT
Oh, and to clarify: I meant that his point is that there was something biologically abnormal, not that my point is the same. I disagree with it.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 7, 2010 0:26:01 GMT
Based on the first post I made here:
If anyone ever says "Homosexuality is wrong because it is biologically unproductive" you just say "Alan belgiuming Turing" and walk away and hope to never have to talk with the dumb shit who said it again.
Also, though I'm playing a little bit of Devil's advocate here, the "world doesn't need more people" argument is wrong. This argument states that homosexuality is a population control, and if we were to live in some small tribal society it would be wrong again. At the same time, it implies that the world needs less people, thereby encouraging non-reproducing sex, and, according to the argument for homosexuality through nonreproductivity (a word? IDK), it further implies that because population is so high, more people should be gay. So not only does it do a bad job arguing for gays in an ethical perspective, but it goes backwards by arguing heterosexuality in the same moral views.
I'm so sorry for the italics :\
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Nov 7, 2010 7:35:24 GMT
Being gay is biological and pshychocoligal(I'm sure i made a spelling error here)wrong. People are supposed to show normal human behavior. Of course people who have a handicap don't show normal human activity or behavior but it's not their fault. Being gay is a choice. Still, sometimes i thank people that gays exist, because you got those funny YouTube videos about them. My overal opinion?
BEING GAY IS BIOLOGICALLY AND PSHICOLOGICALLY WRONG
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 7, 2010 8:09:06 GMT
Okay, got any actual evidence for that? You know, to make this a "debate"?
Also, if you think being gay is a choice, here's an exercise for you. Look at a member of the same sex. Go on, stare at them. Try to find their hot sexy curves attractive to you. Can you? No? Then how can you call being gay a choice if you can't choose to be gay?
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Nov 7, 2010 12:22:36 GMT
To those who make the claim that homosexuality is useless as it cannot produce offspring, do you really think the world NEEDS any more people? As if there aren't enough of us starving to death already, you seem to be claiming that there is some need, some necessity for more children. Even disregarding that, are people who cannot reproduce for other reasons, such as women who have had their uterus removed, also so worthless to our society? Should we disown and brand them also, as "unnatural" and deny them of their rights? And what of contraceptives? Should we abolish condoms, birth control pills, seeing as that too, is "unnatural"? Actually, the entire population of humans can fit comfortably in the state of Colorado. Or Norway. Or Iraq. To the deeply religious, screaming with blind hate taken from eon old books written by people who lived in a violent world, claiming that no God would allow such an abomination, why do you do this? If your God is so loving, so caring, so understanding in all his greatness, why would he allow such a thing in the first place? I'm sure you believe that being gay is a choice too. If so, I ask again, prove that it is. If your God creates man in an image of himself, why would he sentence some of us to an eternal hell from birth? I believe that there already is a debate about this. Nevermind. That was about whether or not God exists.
I don't think being gay is a choice, and I believe it is OK. I am too tired to present my arguments... I'll probably add them later.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 8, 2010 6:06:54 GMT
Handicapped people show plenty of normal human behavior.
Also, if homosexuality was not such a huge taboo, it would be...you know...normal human behavior.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Nov 8, 2010 19:03:07 GMT
The ancient Greeks considered homosexuality, or at least bisexuality, normal.
I believe the main reason people are against homosexuality is that it is gross to a straight person.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 8, 2010 20:00:58 GMT
Total Land Area of Colorado*: ~103,730 miles2 = 2891826432000 feet2
World population**: 6,697,254,041 people
Land per person: 431.7928534 feet2person-1
Assuming each piece of land is a square, each person would have approximately a 21 ft x 21 ft area (smaller, actually). That's just slightly larger than my 20 ft x 16 ft dormitory. Since my roommate moved out one week after college started and I haven't had a roommate since, I have every right to testify whether or not this is comfortable, as backed by 11 weeks (nearly 3 months, or a season, or a quarter of a year) of experience without a roommate. For the purposes of a college student with connections to relatives who can send "care packages" whenever supplies run low, I can live comfortably. As someone who would have to rely on what can be made within that space of 21 ft x 21 ft, that is impossible. If I did try getting materials from outside my dormitory-sized land, that would mean that I can't live comfortably in my limited land. I would like to say that, with a combination of experience and some thought experiment, one cannot live comfortably and self-sufficiently in the confines of a 21 ft x 21 ft room.
...but I digress from the point of the thread with basic arithmetic.
* as of 09/24/09 ** as calculated by Google on 11/08/11 19:42 FST
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Nov 9, 2010 0:10:26 GMT
Well, I was thinking about this the other day and a brilliant idea came to mind, which has made me change my standing on the "choice vs. not-a-choice" issue. After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that, anthropologically, homosexuality must be a choice. To explain this, we can simply use Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Natural selection says that organisms of any given species that develop a trait which helps them survive and/or reproduce, will fare better other organisms of the same species that lack that trait, and will eventually be the only ones left. Conversely, organisms that develop a trait that hinders their ability to survive and/or reproduce, will fare worse than those lacking the trait, and will die out.
This is exactly the case with homosexuality. If homosexuality were a biological trait, it must have originated, by chance, as an abnormal trait in one particular human, or a small group of humans. Now, a homosexual human is obviously not able to reproduce. Therefore, all the homosexuals would have died out shortly after the first homosexual humans appeared.
Some people may argue that, because there are still homosexuals around today, they obviously haven't died out, meaning it wasn't a passed-on trait. Some may say that it is actually a birth defect. A possible explanation for this is that--like all birth defects and the like--a certain proportion of the number of humans in the world could have been born with homosexuality. In other words, at any given time in Earth's history, 1 out of every x humans would be homosexual (Just like--with all other birth defects--1 out of every x humans born is affected with y birth defect). However, this is clearly not the case, since statistics show that the proportion of homosexual people to total population has gone up drastically over time.
In case you didn't bother to read all that (or if it confused you), the bottom line is this:
Homosexuality must be a choice, because if it were not a choice, one of two things would be the case:
A) If homosexuality was an abnormal biological trait, there would be no homosexuals in the world today, because the earlier ones would have all died out from lack of ability to reproduce and pass on homosexuality to offspring.
OR
B) If homosexuality were, instead, a naturally occurring birth defect, the proportion of homosexuals to the total world population would remain consistent throughout human history, assuming that a birth defect has a 1/x chance of occurring per baby born.
(Note: None of this applies to bisexuals. Using natural selection, I can understand that bisexuality still allows an organism to reproduce. Therefore, bisexuality might be a natural occurrence, because organisms that had it would be able to pass it on to offspring.)
Edit: Wow, this is the most intelligent, thought-out post I've made in this entire thread. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 9, 2010 0:20:59 GMT
Not necessarily. That implies that homosexuality is genetic (or, at any rate, the same logic that can be shown to prove that infertility does not exist). It is defeated by:
a) All those church people and homophobes who eventually came out of the closet, which they would NOT have done if it was a choice.
b) The fact that you cannot look at a man and find them sexually attractive, any more than a gay man can do the same to a woman.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Nov 9, 2010 0:47:17 GMT
He mistyped. He fixed it. And I'm not getting into this argument btw.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 10, 2010 3:41:06 GMT
That was...not a good argument. The idea that it is genetic is wrong, not only because because that's actually a pretty idiotic response, but for two or three other reasons as well. Assuming it's true, that means that children who are biologically related to gay parents would therefore be gay 'carriers' of some sort. Yes, they might be more open to homosexual acts according to a study by some researchers in Southern California , but it's actually pretty even among straight parents and gay parents in the long run (AFAIK).
Also, assuming it is genetic, that means that it would still be able to survive, because you can assume it is a recessive gene. It could have gone on for generations and not have huge results. Even so, this means that over time the people with the genes would slowly increase until significant portions of the population are carriers. This would lead to a population-equilibrium which shows no sign of ever happening.
Also, it's just fucking stupid. Excuse my terrible analogies, but that's like saying that being ugly shouldn't exist because ugly people can't get easily laid. Being ugly is based on environmental conditions as you grow up, and it wouldn't be surprising that it's not the only thing that is affected by these conditions.
You are also imply that, ignoring bisexuality momentarily, the gender/sex system is binary. You can like one or the other, and that's it. And that's the only way that the genetic system or the disorder system works. 9/10 people are perfectly straight, and all like their opposites, and then SUDDENLY one of these 10 people is purely homosexual.
Your system is this crappily designed ideal which everything is black, white, or a perfect shade of grey in between. It's really damn complicated. You can have an attraction to a specific sex, but then you can have an attraction to a gender, and then the masculinity/femininity of the person involved is applied and the list goes on. And to make it worse for those who try to predict it, none of it is binary, it's all a gradient form one to the other, and even now I'm simplifying it. It's a fucking nightmare to try and calculate it the way you did and apparently nobody understand this.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Nov 11, 2010 0:01:39 GMT
LOOK AT TSL's POST! He just said that it's a CHOICE.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Nov 11, 2010 0:05:57 GMT
or, at any rate, the same logic that can be shown to prove that infertility does not exist That's different. Infertility, for the most part, is not something one is born with. Usually it results from age, or a combination of diseases or other ailments that bring about complications and dysfunctions of the reproductive system. Homosexuality isn't like that. Anyways, since I seem to have lost this argument either way, let's move on to something else. Here's a nice little something I found on YouTube a while ago: What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by V.I.R.O.S. on Nov 11, 2010 0:10:38 GMT
I believe that homosexuality is a result of a hormonal imbalance while in the womb. It is not genetic, or clearly all homosexuals would immediately die out. It is also definitely not a choice, because why would someone choose to be gay? Where is the benefit there? That's like choosing to get stabbed in the throat instead of getting not stabbed in the throat.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Nov 11, 2010 0:15:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by V.I.R.O.S. on Nov 11, 2010 0:20:37 GMT
That article specifically states that marriage is about children. It isn't.
Marriage is about coupling. It is multiple individuals who find happiness in eachother's company joining together to form a mutually beneficial and healthy relationship.
I could have said that in more pleasant, less coldly scientific terms, but then it would have been open to interpretation and having its meaning twisted.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 11, 2010 0:21:44 GMT
or, at any rate, the same logic that can be shown to prove that infertility does not exist That's different. Homosexuality, for the most part, is not something one is born with. Sometimes it results from conditions when the person was young, or a combination of psychological conditions or other ailments that bring about complications and dysfunctions of sexuality. Homosexuality is like that. Fixed. As to the video, as VIROS said it assumes that you have to have children for your life, or at least your marriage, to mean something. Have we learned nothing from China and India? For the article, that's gotta be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. I can gather highly biased and misleading articles without any reliable sources, too: www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/07/lowest-divorce/www.loveandpride.com/informationcenter/tips.aspx?categoryid=8Hmm, a stable relationship with two moms, or a rocky one with a mom and a dad. I wonder which one I would go for. We can summarize this argument in a bumper sticker: An internet picture, but quite true. If it's the sanctity of marriage, and the traditional-ness (is that a word?) of marriage, and the use of marriage as a holy, sacred word that has you worried, then why do you not care when people rip apart their vows regularly but do care when a couple people obey their vows and stay together forever and just happen to be the same sex? I'd be far more fine with stuff like Prop 8 if some of the hypocrites on the gay marriage debate (not calling you one) didn't try to use the sanctity of marriage as an excuse while ignoring the divorce rate.
|
|
|